What proof do you have of God?

[Thief]

No, it isn't. It's the Universe. It exists, and doesn't require a creator.

When you die, you turn to dust.

Don't like that? Keep dreaming.

So then you would insist...substance is 'self' starting....?
and the laws of cause and effect are yours to ignore when convenient.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

So then you would insist...substance is 'self' starting....?

Nope. I have no idea what caused substance, but assuming it was God is as utterly baseless as assuming it was "self-starting".

and the laws of cause and effect are yours to ignore when convenient.

So what caused God, then?

 

[Gjallarhorn]

And we die none the less.No one survives this life?

Nothing beyond your last breath?
Not a chance?.....billions to one?

Sounds like a waste of data to resurrect every human who believes if none of us learn anything new, dunnit?

Especially since the Almighty already knows everything, doesn't it?

 

[Thief]

Nope. I have no idea what caused substance, but assuming it was God is as utterly baseless as assuming it was "self-starting".


So what caused God, then?

How about we also consider the appropriate response?.....'I AM'.

 

[Gjallarhorn]

THIS is the question all participants should focus to.

You're smart enough to aim the question at me.
But you haven't done the work unto yourself.
I can tell by the way make rebuttal.

We are at a pivot point...and a good one.

How about we also consider the appropriate response?.....'I AM'.

So then you would insist...God is 'self' starting....?
and the laws of cause and effect are yours to ignore when convenient.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

THIS is the question all participants should focus to.

You're smart enough to aim the question at me.
But you haven't done the work unto yourself.
I can tell by the way make rebuttal.

We are at a pivot point...and a good one.

How about we also consider the appropriate response?.....'I AM'.

You're not going to answer the question, are you?

 

[Thief]

You're not going to answer the question, are you?

I believe I did.....

'Let there be light' is synonymous to....'I AM'

I now suspect you have a fear of your own.
Your rebuttal is fueled by it.
You're hoping to not face something far greater than your 'self'.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I believe I did.....

You believe wrong.

What caused God?

 

[Thief]

You believe wrong.

What caused God?

Come on...you're smarter than that.

Now sit still...clear your head.....consider the 'void'.
Then ask the question for yourself.

THEN say....'I AM'.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Come on...you're smarter than that.

Don't patronize me.

Now, stop stalling and answer the question properly. If you refuse once more, then I shall take that as admittance that you don't have an answer and that your assertion of God is erroneous.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

No spiritual life for you?....not a chance?

My spiritual life is fairly solid I sometimes think, but I have no belief in spirit creatures.

Billions of copies of a form that can only learn.....and it all crumbles to dust?

Don't despair. Take solice in the uncertainty of our knowledge. I could yet be wrong about the Beautiful Shore in the Great By-and-By -- where all my family and friends and old dogs may or may not be waiting for me. It's a question I can't answer, so I spend my thinking time on other matters.

 

[1robin]

Does justice either objectively exist or else not?

Yes, however we were not discussing justice.

You sound a bit wound up. But maybe I'm mistaken. Or maybe your woundupedness only exists as an individual opinion in our heads... like God.

I get wound up when I see terrible arguments. I love a good challenge and appreciate a well reasoned argument whether I agree or not. I can't stand bad logic, claims to knowledge about which the person can't know, or the refusal to acknowledge the most basic and obvious facts if it is inconvenient.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Yes...

Wow. Justice exists objectively? What a very curious belief. But I understand that some people conceive of a great, actually-existing creature named 'God' and that within God's Great Noggin exists objectively true stuff. And I supoose that such a person would also conceive of 'justice' as existing there in God's Noggin, as some kind of 'real' thing.

But to me, it all seems like a most bizarre and confusing way to see things. No wonder you, um... discontinue our dialogues when my questions become too difficult.

I get wound up when I see terrible arguments.

That seems odd to me, too. When I see terrible arguments, I get either bored or else intrigued.

 

[waitasec]

:spit:


excellent....

 

[1robin]

Wow. Justice exists objectively? What a very curious belief.

Actually it is quite common. Entire constitutions and systems of law are based on the fact that there exists perfect justice. That is the goal of benevolent nations. Every time you think you have rights or a child says something is unfair is an appeal to objective justice. It is instinctual.

But I understand that some people conceive of a great, actually-existing creature named 'God' and that within God's Great Noggin exists objectively true stuff. And I supoose that such a person would also conceive of 'justice' as existing there in God's Noggin, as some kind of 'real' thing.

Why have you all of a sudden flipped out and now deny the God that told you he doesn't speak. You argued for some strange God at one time. Who is it you are prophet of?

But to me, it all seems like a most bizarre and confusing way to see things. No wonder you, um... discontinue our dialogues when my questions become too difficult.

Your questions becoeming difficult has more to do with their incoherence than anything challenging about them.

That seems odd to me, too. When I see terrible arguments, I get either bored or else intrigued.

The stakes are such that in my educated and experienced opinion I see people wager their souls on things I would not risk anything on. People for some reason work very hard and defy anything necessary to reject what is IMO the only hope for man. I reject Pascal's wager as it is written but if modified to say there is only gain in giving the benefit of the doubt to God I think it is accurate and good advice. Why strive in vain and use terrible reasoning to destroy hope?

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Actually it is quite common. Entire constitutions and systems of law are based on the fact that there exists perfect justice.

If you want to swallow the pap spooned out to us by politicians, that is certainly your right. For myself, I'm a theologian. I can't throw out all of my rational thinking just to conform myself to the zeitgeist of some specific culture. My God transcends all cultures. I won't disappoint Him by settling for some local truth because it makes me feel good. (Sorry. Sometimes my self-righteousness leaks out a little around the edges of my words. I'm working on it.)

That is the goal of benevolent nations. Every time you think you have rights or a child says something is unfair is an appeal to objective justice.

It's true that many children believe in 'fairness'. But wise adults understand that no such things as 'rights' exist except those we proclaim and enforce ourselves.

Why have you all of a sudden flipped out and now deny the God that told you he doesn't speak. You argued for some strange God at one time. Who is it you are prophet of?

You know, I didn't even realize that I'd suddenly gone flippy. It's good that you are here by my side to describe and explain myself to me. My very own Sancho Panza. I will become a hero yet, with your help.

Your questions becoeming difficult has more to do with their incoherence than anything challenging about them.

Did I not prophesy that those who flee my questions will usually do so while cursing the questions? I am really pretty sure that I'm a mighty prophet indeed.

Here's my question again, by the way, in case you've forgotten: To whom must a thing be proven in order for that thing to be proven?

The stakes are such that in my educated and experienced opinion I see people wager their souls on things I would not risk anything on.

I don't believe in souls myself. No evidence for them. No rational argumentation to support their existence.

People for some reason work very hard and defy anything necessary to reject what is IMO the only hope for man.

You mean hope after death, yes? But many of us have not accepted any of the various stories about afterlives. Down through the years, people have told lots of stories about many magical things. Some of us have trouble believing those stories. So we have no need for the hope you're discussing.

I reject Pascal's wager as it is written but if modified to say there is only gain in giving the benefit of the doubt to God I think it is accurate and good advice. Why strive in vain and use terrible reasoning to destroy hope?

Oh, come on. I don't believe that even you can ignore the 500-pound gorilla in the room.

The uncomfortable but obvious fact is that people use terrible reasoning to build up and then cling fiercely to magical things. Things clearly crafted only to satisfy human hope. Heaven. Souls. Gods-under-the-mountain or Gods-in-the-Sky.

It's why we rationalists so easily run circles around the faithful here. (A bit more leakage there. Sorry.)

 

[1robin]

If you want to swallow the pap spooned out to us by politicians, that is certainly your right. For myself, I'm a theologian.

Any one who is a theologian and yet claim there is no God has swallowed something.

I can't throw out all of my rational thinking just to conform myself to the zeitgeist of some specific culture. My God transcends all cultures. I won't disappoint Him by settling for some local truth because it makes me feel good. (Sorry. Sometimes my self-righteousness leaks out a little around the edges of my words. I'm working on it.)

You have gone from amusingly contradictory to downright off the reservation. Eithert clear up who this God is, that does not exist and yet told you he doens't speak, is a figment of our imagination but yet transcends all cultures. You are the most self contardictory human I ever met.

It's true that many children believe in 'fairness'. But wise adults understand that no such things as 'rights' exist except those we proclaim and enforce ourselves.

Every culture that ever existed has some for of rights. Our's was made the greatest in history in part because of those rights. Without them slavery, racism, and genocide makes perfect sence.

You know, I didn't even realize that I'd suddenly gone flippy. It's good that you are here by my side to describe and explain myself to me. My very own Sancho Panza. I will become a hero yet, with your help.

What is a Sancho Panza? Sounds like a new taco bell item.

Did I not prophesy that those who flee my questions will usually do so while cursing the questions? I am really pretty sure that I'm a mighty prophet indeed.

Did the God that never speaks or the figment God give you that prophecy?

Here's my question again, by the way, in case you've forgotten: To whom must a thing be proven in order for that thing to be proven?

Ok an incoherent answer to an incoherent question. To whom it is that is used as the standard by which the issue is decided.

I don't believe in souls myself. No evidence for them. No rational argumentation to support their existence.

Has no bearing on anything. Whatever the stakes are, include everything.

You mean hope after death, yes? But many of us have not accepted any of the various stories about afterlives. Down through the years, people have told lots of stories about many magical things. Some of us have trouble believing those stories. So we have no need for the hope you're discussing.

Then remain hopeless if you so choose.

Oh, come on. I don't believe that even you can ignore the 500-pound gorilla in the room.

The uncomfortable but obvious fact is that people use terrible reasoning to build up and then cling fiercely to magical things. Things clearly crafted only to satisfy human hope. Heaven. Souls. Gods-under-the-mountain or Gods-in-the-Sky.

It's why we rationalists so easily run circles around the faithful here. (A bit more leakage there. Sorry.)

You are only running circles around your own claims.

 

[HeatherAnn]

A divine deity, and something that supports a theory/fact. I'll take arguments too.

God doesn't necessarily mean deity.
God is also defined as that which one worships... or "Supreme Being, understood as Life, Truth, love, Mind, Soul, Spirit, Principle."

I think the most helpful and HONEST definition of God is: that which one worships.
How do you prove that there exists some aspect, thing or person that is worshipped.
Observe what takes priority by how you spend your day.
What do you worship?

Paul Tillich explained that God is one's "ultimate concern." It is rather absurd to question the ultimacy of one's ultimate concern.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

Any one who is a theologian and yet claim there is no God has swallowed something.

Oh, come on out and play. You'll never convince anyone of your God by simply tossing insult.

You have gone from amusingly contradictory to downright off the reservation.

Unless... well, unless it's the God of Insult whom you worship. Is that what you're trying to demonstrate here -- that you follow the Insult God?

Eithert clear up who this God is, that does not exist and yet told you he doens't speak, is a figment of our imagination but yet transcends all cultures.

You're not yet ready to hear of my God. I'm sorry. There are none so blind as those whose fields of vision are cluttered with a cloud of outgoing insults.

You are the most self contardictory human I ever met.

You are saddled with one of the most extreme cases of word-belief that I've ever studied. But not to worry; I think I can fix it. Especially if you are dedicated to the endeavor and willing to forego all other plans for the next decade or so.

Every culture that ever existed has some for of rights. Our's was made the greatest in history in part because of those rights. Without them slavery, racism, and genocide makes perfect sence.

It's funny how rights work. When the US was founded, slaves had no rights. Later, as we matured, we decided that owning slaves was wrong. And nowadays I have to listen as Americans argue with a straight face that slaves had those rights of freedom all along. Yikes... the human mind is a marvelous machine of trickery, I often think.

What is a Sancho Panza? Sounds like a new taco bell item.

Just testing you, bud. You did fine. Don't worry about it.

[In order for a thing to be proven, it must be proven] To whom it is that is used as the standard by which the issue is decided.

As the standard is decided by the proven whom, so is the issue whomed back into the original decision.

So there. Absolute proof that you are wrong. (Anyone who tries to out-wordsalad me has chosen the wrong dressing from the getgo.)

 

[Photonic]

Religious beliefs only stand really strong when they're beyond scientific evidence. As soon as we venture into the field of science, falsifiability applies.

Pretty much my whole view on religion in general.